Sunday, February 25, 2007

How shameful that while our Troops are voluntarily in harm's way, fighting for the freedom and protection of not only the Iraqi people, but to defeat terrorists that flooded into Iraq from other areas, where they were poised for future attacks, that our brave Troops ever have to feel the need to petition Congress for the Courage to complete their mission.

Seeing our lamestream media publish every account from any of the few Veteran or Troops dissatisfied with Military Service or the War on Terror in Iraq, it is a even bigger shame that this majority of our brave Troops and their request to Congress will never see the front pages.

Our Troops should never have to feel the need to request support, shame on Congress for letting these Troops down!

Lew

UPDATE: As expected, the lamestream media, CBS's 60 Minutes in this case, ran a story this evening, February 25, 2007, titled Dissension in the Ranks where they give coverage of those that are not in agreement with the War. Not one word about the growing numbers redressing Congress for support.Surely, CBS's vast news staff could have or should have uncovered and known about both sides of this.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

From leftist celebrities, to leftist politicians, to activists, we continue to hear “we need to take America back.” To listen to them, conservatives have stolen something that was exclusively theirs and theirs alone.

Advocated by TBA is the Apollo Alliance Agenda, a conglomeration of Socialist governors, green advocates and unions.

Throughout they speak of “making things affordable.” Of course, that translates to raising taxes so we pay for others use of those things. What still astonishes me is how many Americans give credence to wealthy celebrities complaining about the wealth of others and advocating the raising of taxes. Yet, these same multi-millionaire celebrities take ever advantage of lowering their own taxes and keeping their many millions.

They make speeches of how we more simple Americans need to sacrifice by using less energy, live in smaller homes, drive smaller vehicles, travel less and such. Yet, how many of them live in elegant air conditioned mansions, own fleets of large limousines, travel the world in expensive yachts and private jets making even more millions? And, since they all cry about raising minimum wage, just what wage scale do they pay their home staff? Do they encourage their maids, cooks, chauffeurs, yard keepers and such to belong to unions? Do they give them an equitable benefits package and retirement pay? If not, why not? Isn’t that what they demand of multi-million dollar corporations?

Yet, fans flock to their concerts and movies and pay exorbitant prices to hear and see them and cling to their every word.

The above is far from the only claim of an America that never was, though. They also advocate a more “anything goes” type of society. Anything, that is, except Christianity and Christian morals and values.

Homosexuality is openly embraced not only as an alternant lifestyle, but a preferred lifestyle. Schools teach your children acceptance regardless of what you feel. Courts uphold schools teaching with no regard of parents. Home schooling is about the only out parents are given, but even that is underfire.

Some schools are even advocating parents pay the school if their child misses class.

Today, thanks to the efforts of the ACLU, we often hear of “Separation of Church and State,” which resulted in prayer banned in schools, removal of the ten commandments from certain public buildings, even though our own laws are built upon them, denial and prohibition of Christmas related displays and complaints of Veterans Memorials which are in the shape of a cross.

Little known is that Separation of Church and State is nowhere within our Constitution. It was decreed by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1947. However, Article 52, section 2 of the constitution of the now defunct Union of Socialist States of Russia states; “In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.”

Of all of our rights to be under fire from the “Take Back America” left, few garner as much emotion as does the Second Amendment, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, gun ownership. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929 and between that year and 1953, some 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

Another group, Citizen’s Against Racism and Discrimination, brings out the logical argument of Slavery in America’s history proliferating when, shortly after the American Revolution in 1792, Slaves were denied guns, after fighting the British in the Revolution.

In Europe, where the left tells us to look to for enlightenment, gun control misfired with sensational killings of innocents by criminals who were forced to give up their arms by the governments.

Yet, that is where the American left wishes to take us today.

Another favorite call of the “Take Back America” left is to raise our taxes to a “more fair and equitable level.” Again, the claim is made they only raise taxes on the wealthy, but throughout my life, every time the wealthy receive a tax increase, somehow, so do I. I am far from wealthy, making maybe $40K a year.

The cry is to “repeal the Bush tax cuts,” despite solid evidence that tax cuts are working. Somehow, expecting the poor and impoverished to take advantage of the free education we pay for through property taxes and get a job escapes the left. Maybe they are afraid a fully educated society will see through their nonsense and become conservatives, seeking to better themselves and their position in life.

While not all-inclusive, this is the vision for America I see coming from the Socialist “Take Back America” left. There are many more points they push for regardless of the consequences or contrary evidence. Global Warming, in spite of record winter cold. Ethanol, in spite of creating a food shortage. Open borders, in spite of increased risks for terrorist attacks or disease from unvaccinated illegal aliens. The list just goes on and on and we pay the price.

Thinking about it while writing this and since they also claim a landslide victory in the 2006 elections, I wonder just whom they feel the need to take America back from now? As I see it, the America they envision never existed. It appears to me they wish to recreate a Socialist Utopia patterned after the former Soviet Union, which failed by stripping citizens of their natural desire of self improvement and oppressing dissent, which they seem to freely accuse conservatives of.

Lew

UPDATE: The "Take Back America" crowd keeps telling us how hated America is. See what a British Ad Group thinks about that;

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

In what appears to be Washington D.C.’s competing Queen Bee’s vying for attention, both appeared today to be trying to be significant.

Hillary, at a campaign stop pandering for Black votes in “Liberty City,” a predominately Black neighborhood in Miami, Florida called for an End of U.S. ‘ARROGANCE’ in the presidency.

Coming from someone else, this might be a believable call. Coming from Hillary, it is about as ridiculous as it gets. Who has been more arrogant than her and her husband when they were “co-presidents?” She refuses to call her vote for the invasion of Iraq a "mistake” to appease the far leftist drivel in the Democrat party.

Clinton said that the Bush administration squandered worldwide goodwill in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

No, Mrs. Clinton, we aren’t a nation known for any goodwill coming from other nations. What you confuse as “goodwill” is actually “sympathy” from others. Then, as usual, they and many within the country simply “got over it” and went back to sleep.

During World War Two, when we had Troops staging in England for the all important invasion of France to free Europe from the clutches of Nazism, a common saying from the British towards our Troops was, “they are over paid, over sexed and over here!” That was in the 1940’s and England has been our staunchest ally.

A 1958 Best Seller, The Ugly American, chronicled what the author saw as a “slashing exposé of American arrogance,” particularly in Southeast Asia.

And, who could be deemed more arrogant than the Clinton’s? From husband Bills refusal to discuss his draft dodging in the 1992 campaign, to Hillary’s declaration of a “vast right winged conspiracy” to “get her husbands presidency,” to the statement of, “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

The Clinton years are amongst the most arrogant we ever saw. From invading Bosnia, Kosovo, without a U.N. mandate, to turning a blind eye to the genocide in Rwanda, to cutting our Defense budget while deploying Troops more than any president in recent history, the Clinton’s arrogantly set themselves up as a ‘dynasty.’

To hear Hillary vowing to “End U.S. ‘ARROGANCE’ as President” is not only laughable it is ridiculous.

Perhaps the most striking about this is the revelation that the Democrat party even has a “strategy.”

Vice President Cheney had said, "I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy. The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

Is there something about brutal honesty that Speakerette Pelosi doesn’t care for?

Said Pelosi, “[Cheney’s comment was] beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

Really, Ms. Pelosi? And comments from the old sot Kennedy and comments of the darling of the cut-and-run crowd and un-indicted co-conspirator from the Abscam scandal, Jack Murtha are considered what?

From Kennedy’s collaboration with the KGB to his comment about “The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution,” (The Associated Press, 1/27/05), what support for the Troops is there?

And, Murtha’s working with well known anti- war groups to accomplish his Slow Bleed policy, claiming, “This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge. We’re trying to force redeployment [of troops outside Iraq], not by taking money away but by redirecting it,” leaves the Troops feeling what? Overwhelming support? Or betrayal?

At the same time, we have Rep. Tom Andrews stating of the alliance with the anti-war groups, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party,” after admitting "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership.

Of course, Speaker Pelosi fully supports and stands behind this move at undermining and “slow bleeding” the Troops, she claims Democrats “all support.”

Speaker Pelosi, on the February 14, 2007 showing of the The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, was asked, "Ms. Pelosi, what would your position be if in fact the Petraeus plan worked?" What if it actually worked, the Baghdad security plan?

Caught off guard by such a question and after a small amount of stammering, she replied, "I pray that it does. But the fact is we know that it would increase the odds of it working if there were some sincere efforts to engage the other countries in the region in the diplomatic solutions that are necessary to stabilize the region, and do the political work, do the political work -- that is to say, amend the constitution, include the Sunnis and others into the civic life of Iraq. That's where you go. You don't go into ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and say, 'Now we're going to referee.'"

Is it supportive of the troops saying they are engaging in ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods? About as supportive as Dick Durbin’s comparisons of the Troops to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings,” or Murtha’s saying the Marines “murdered innocent civilians in cold blood.”

And now that Vice President Cheney expresses dissent, after all the talk of ”dissent is patriotic”, by the Democrat party, Speakerette Pelosi gets her panties in a twist?

Welcome to the big leagues, Nancy. As a noted past Democrat President is quoted as saying, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Harry S. Truman also often said, “Don’t take on a job if you are unwilling to face its pressures.”

We all have heard the above numerous times from the Bush hating leftists opposed to the War on Terror in Iraq. We even hear from the Bush hating Democrat party who, along with many Republicans, sat by and allowed terror to grow worldwide, opting to ignore the growing menace.

How many more American, Iraqi, and other lives will be lost if we do not finish the job?

Looking back to Viet Nam, since the left likes to make that comparison, we hightailed it out of there and then cut off any and all support for the South. In a couple years, after much resupply and rebuilding, the North flooded over the border and conquered South Viet Nam, violating the Paris Peace Accords, while we sat back and closed our eyes.

Not until the early 80’s did word start coming out of the "peaceful" takeover that ended up costing millions of lives of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotians, with many thousands more lost in the South China Sea escaping as the "Boat People."

This time, however, the enemy has shown they aren't only interested in the Middle East, they want the world.

Abandon Iraq now and you are handing terrorist groups like Al Qaeda a safe haven for more terrorist training camps to eventually launch more 9/11 type attacks against us and our interests.

We would be doing nothing more than condemning our grandchildren to an even bloodier fight against a more emboldened and strengthened enemy, most likely here on our own streets.

Our Troops have voted to stay and fight by the record number of reenlistments. They have the will and all they ask is our support.

Monday, February 19, 2007

One thing we have come to expect from Hillary Clinton is her constant gaffs and contradictions of herself. As bad as she thinks she’s owed the presidency, one would think she would have her staff keep her briefed on what she said earlier in the week.

Her most famous was her claim that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to ever scale Mt. Everest. Sorry, Hillary, but he didn’t accomplish that until a few years after you were born. Of course, it is also possible that her Mom said that to her as a wee little girl to bolster her ego or make her feel better. But, wouldn’t the world’s smartest woman realize she was born before Hillary scaled Mt. Everest after she grew up and not make such a claim?

Lately, she has spared no verbiage in bashing President Bush and the War on Terror in Iraq. Campaigning, though, bashing the sitting President is somewhat normal. Still, She has been very outspoken against the War on Terror in Iraq even stating last month on January 28, "We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office in January 2009.” Okay, still campaigning and pandering to the anti-war leftists.

Just this past Saturday, she quipped, "Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war."

Okay, staying on her anti-war stance fairly well, so far.

As always with Hillary, sooner or later she trips over her tongue (not to be confused with Monica) and campaigning through South Carolina today, I feel she did just that!

While there and calling for the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from the Statehouse, a flag that emotes strong emotions, from anger to pride, in various people and that both Black and White Southerners fought under during our Civil War and sadly, was hijacked by Supremacist groups in the 1960’s, she said that South Carolina should remove the Confederate flag from its Statehouse grounds, in part because the nation should unite under one banner while at war.

If she feels we should be “united under one banner,” aren’t her and the rest of the Democrat party and the White Flag Republicans constant opposition hindering the very thing she thinks should be? Not to mention slapping a whole bunch of Southerners she panders for votes.

I’ve never even seen anyone go off to war, this one or my own, waving a Confederate Battle Flag. All have fought under one flag and one flag only, the American Flag.

If she expects us to become “united under that one banner” though, perhaps her own vitriolic opposition and that of the Democrat party and White Flag Republicans should cease and desist and they start working together with the President, as he has been trying to get them to do, and support our troops onward to Victory.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

In a not too surprising announcement today, leaders of Syria and Iran have joined in agreement with the Democrat Party and the few White Flag Republicans in stating U.S. ‘will lose in Middle East'

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said, “The United States will not achieve its goals in the Middle East.” Khamenei added, “US President George W. Bush had even lost support within his own party over his Iraq policies.”

Syrian president Bashar Assad says, "Realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by US and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran says, “[Syria and Iran] have pledged to work together to confront US and Israeli ‘plots’ in the Middle East.”

Mirroring these same thoughts, the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, February 16, approved a “non-binding” resolution opposed to President Bush’s call for sending 21,500 reinforcements to the region to help stabilize Baghdad.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said of their vote, “The passage of this legislation will signal change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon.”

Also unfinished and unvictorious, I might add.

Rep. Henry Waxman adds, “What we now have in Iraq is a defeat of the illusions of the Bush Administration that we will be able to create a stable, unified, liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American.”

Rep. John Murtha said he “plans to introduce legislation that would end Bush's plan by setting limits on which troops can be sent and would prevent them from being sent back too soon or too poorly equipped.” He added, "That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ... they cannot sustain the deployment."

Rep. David Wu said that Iraq had been eliminated as a threat to the United States.

I thought that the Democrat party has been harping that Iraq never posed a threat to the United States?

On Saturday, February 17, in a rare weekend session of the Senate, a similar measure was defeated, as sufficient votes for cloture were not realized. Still, this has not stopped the predominately Democrat party opposition to reinforcing out Troops in Iraq fighting the War on Terror. Seven White Flag waving Republicans joined with the Democrats in opposition.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid said, “The Bush Administration's failures have put our troops and America in a deep hole, and it is time for this country and this Congress to climb out.”

Senator Hillary Clinton chimed in with, "Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war." Mirroring Rep. John Murtha, she proposed what she calls the "Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act," adding, "If George Bush doesn't end the war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will."

On Saturday, February 17, in an email received from Brian Wolff, DCCC Executive Director, the statements are made of, “United in support for our troops who are bravely serving in Iraq, Democrats voted today to oppose the President's escalation plan,” and “Our troops and our country deserve better than the Republicans' stay the course strategy.”

Only a liberal could think they are “united in their support of the Troops” by denying them the necessary tools, men and equipment they need when in harm’s way.

Only a liberal could think that forcing another defeat on our troops is “deserving better” for them.

I might add that recently, this same Senate voted unanimously in approving Lt. Gen. David Petraeus as commander in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus said, “The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy.” He voiced confidence in the administration’s plan to send thousands of additional troops into Baghdad adding, “he would not be able to carry out his assignment as top U.S. commander successfully without the additional troops.”

This elicited the comment from Republican John Warner of, “I hope that this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret.”

Recently approved Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, "It's pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries.”

Add to this that recently, we have Retired Army General William Odom saying the U.S. Should ”cut and run” from Iraq and writing an op-ed piece in the February 11, 2007 Washington Times, Victory Is Not An Option.

How would you like to be one of the Troops fighting the War on Terror today, or storming the beaches of Normandy or Guadalcanal in World War Two with leaders like that behind you?

It is little wonder that former North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, who accepted the surrender of Saigon in April 1975, in a Wall Street Journal article published August 3, 1995, when asked about the effectiveness of the American anti-war movement on their victory, “It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable.”

When Col. Tin was asked about President Johnson’s refusal to honor General Westmoreland’s request for an additional 200,000 reinforcements in 1968, he replied, “We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw.” Tin added, “We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.”

It would appear to me that the leaders of both Iran and Syria, as well Al Qaeda and any other insurgency group rising up to help dominate the world under Radical Islamofascism studied the “new directions” of a Democrat party led Congress before and just as they figured on, history repeats itself.

It is little wonder that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can join with America’s Democrat party in saying, “The United States will not achieve its goals in the Middle East.”

Friday, February 16, 2007

Joined by 17 turncoat Republicans today, the United States House of Representatives, under the leadership of Democrat Speakerette, Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca.) passed their “non-binding” resolution expressing disagreement, opposition, if you will, against President Bush’s plan to reinforce our fighting troops in the War on Terror in Iraq, by a vote of 246 to 182. House Passes Resolution Opposing Bush’s Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq

Democrats, overjoyed at their ease of undermining the President and our troops in harms way, have let their pleasure in this cowardly act be known. “Today, in a loud voice, the Congress of the United States said to the president: 'We need a new direction in Iraq,'” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (D. Md) who in December 2005 said, “I still believe that we can – and that we must – achieve success in Iraq.”

President Bush did outline a new direction in his last state of the Union Address, sending 21,500 more troops into the battle in Iraq to secure Baghdad enough to give the fledgling Iraqi government the chance to get on their feet. In spite of all previous calls for just that and approving unanimously the selection of General Petraeus to lead in Iraq, Democrats, just days later pass a “non-binding” resolution that basically blocking, or at least opposing, the efforts of General Petraeus.

Says Rep. Hoyer now, “We should begin the phased redeployment of our forces within the next six months.”

Rep. Henry Waxman, (D. Ca.) chimes in with, “What we now have in Iraq is a defeat of the illusions of the Bush Administration that we will be able to create a stable, unified, liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American." Does Rep. Waxman prefer a Taliban style insurgency backed by the radical Islamist regime of Iran that hates America and Western Culture? He continues, “Instead we have sectarian fighting, death squads, and a destabilized Middle East that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare we have unleashed." If Waxman feels that “we unleashed a nightmare” there, does it please him to just abandon it to the radical terrorists again? Was he unable to see the nightmares perpetrated upon innocent people when the Taliban and Baathists ruled in Afghanistan and Iraq before?

In October 2002, Waxman voted for resolution H.J.Res. 114 which authorized the use of military force to ensure Iraq disarmed. He now claims he did so with the expectation that “a strong bipartisan stand in Congress would pressure the United Nations to carry out its responsibilities to enforce its own resolutions.” As we all know, as usual, the UN sat by and complained. So, in typical Democrat fashion, Bush was blamed.

Yet, just last month on January 31, Waxman, in a speech delivered before a Palisades Democratic Club audience, after the usual tirade of Bush bashing and opposition to everything from Iraq to cigarettes, said in regards to Darfur, “[He] advocates 'going in there [with military assistance]'not to occupy or kill people, but to save lives. We showed leadership by going into Bosnia and we've got to show leadership again.“ He told the students, “Keep writing letters and getting those petitions to President Bush, [urging him] not just to 'talk a good talk,' but to actually get us to take action. Congress is ready to do whatever he needs. The president has the power to act and I want him to act now.”

What power would the President have with Democrats opposing every little thing he does, Representative Waxman? What power does he have with the newly elected Democrat party majority ripping the rug out from under, not only the President, but our troops as well, Representative Waxman? Darfur is a result of our previous cowardly withdrawal from Somalia, Mr. Waxman, is your call for action there a call for a repeat? Why is it Darfur merits Military action, but Iraq doesn’t?

We also have Representative Jack Murtha (D. Pa.), self appointed Congressional General, I guess, who is slyly attempting a back-door Slow-Bleed Strategy which is nothing more than setting up Congress as micromanagers of the War effort, against what is written in our Constitution. It is also the first step in cutting off funding of our Troops. Said Murtha, “That stops the surge[reinforcement] (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ... they cannot sustain the deployment."

Most Republicans seeing the dangerous days ahead should we fail in this War stood firm, other than the 17 turncoats who should be turned out next election. Only 2 Democrats are able to see through the heavy partisanship grasping our country at this time and voted against their party, also seeing this War needs to be finished in a Victory! Only Two!!!

Sam Johnson (R. TX.) and former Viet Nam POW said, “Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already, we must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them," adding a snappy salute that earned him an ovation.

John Boehner (R. Oh.) and Republican leader said, “This is all part of their plan to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm's way. And we stand here as Republicans...committed to making sure our troops in harm's way have all the funds and equipment they need to win this war in Iraq.”

Barbara Cubin (R. Wy) said, “This resolution sends a dangerous message to the terrorists in Iraq, They have succeeded in dividing us.”

No, Ms. Cubin, it is the Democrat party that decided long ago to demonize the right and divide the country so they could conquer it and impose their Socialist agenda, even if they destroy the country in the process.

Vito Fossella (R. NY) said it well when he stated, “You cannot surrender the battlefield and win the war!”

Peter King (R. NY), in reply to Speaker Pelosi’s claims of, “… the war in Iraq is not part of the battle against terrorism, but rather a distraction from it,” said, “This war in Iraq cannot be looked at in a vacuum, [it] is indeed a theater in the war on terror.”

Unfortunately, the Democrat Party has succeeded in convincing too many Americans that the fighting of terrorists in Iraq is not part of the War on Terror.

Most disappointing of Republicans was turncoat and future failed Presidential candidate, Ron Paul (RINO TX) who ended his speech with, “We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?”

In the 2006 campaign, Nancy Pelosi campaigned on the theme and released the booklet A New Direction For America. On page 10 of that booklet, she promises Democrats will, “Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.” And, "Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.” Also, “Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.”

How does she propose “DOUBLING THE SIZE OF OUR SPECIAL FORCES” after ripping the rug out from underneath those very troops as they are engaged in fighting terrorists now?

Terrorists declared war on us long ago as well as all of Western Culture. They have vowed to destroy us. They have been growing stronger ever since they started this latest campaign against the West, until finally, a President with the courage to fight took the fight back to them. All Pelosi, Murtha and the rest of the Democrats, with the help of turncoat Republicans, have done is to condemn our grandchildren to fighting these terrorists, most likely within our own streets, years from now when the terrorists will be much stronger, even better organized and the cost in blood will be even greater.

You can rest assured, Pelosi and Murtha’s grandchildren won’t be fighting, they enjoy privilege. The fighting and dying will be by yours and my grandchildren!

Lew

UPDATE: MSNBC has posted an article, Baghdad violence drops, officials say where claims are made back and forth about early successes of the troop reinforcement. Most telling to me, is the "in other developements" at the end of the article, "Iraq’s Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, told the Arabic language daily Al-Hayat that Sunni insurgents who are “honorable and genuine” must be given the chance to join the political process now that the United States is eager to pull its troops from Iraq. He said U.S. and Iraqi representatives must negotiate “with the participation of the resistance” after “America has failed to run the country.”"

Ms. Sheehan, better known as Momma Moonbat, has gotten wind of this and in true fashion, has posted a reply of her own, Rightest America Haters. In her fashion of ranting uncontrollably without thinking of what she spews or its effects, she calls those who are concerned about her group’s upcoming actions, “self-proclaimed patriots.” “so called "Gathering of Eagles",” and “poor misguided, brainwashed and propagandized, "Eagles",” then goes on to remind us of HER first amendment rights and the oath that we and her son took upon entering or reenlisting in the Military and calling on us to join her march “if [we] really believed in this country and what [we] ostensibly "fought for".”

Ms. Sheehan, we don’t need you to remind us of anything. We know full well there are over 58,000 names of our brothers on that Wall. We also know that we had that war basically won after we totally defeated the North Vietnamese Communists in their ill fated Tet of ’68 Offensive.

We know that the North Vietnamese, under the command of General Vo Ngyuen Giap, was considering a “negotiated surrender” after his forces were decimated in that failed Offensive.

We know that he saw and heard the words of Walter Cronkite describe their failure as a ‘victory’ for them and a ‘defeat’ for us.

We know that is what encouraged them to forgo the surrender and fight on from the shadows in ‘hit and run’ fashion, as agents of the KGB infiltrated the anti-war left of the time and whipped up false stories of mass mutiny’s, fraggings, drug usage, atrocities, un-prosecuted war crimes, suicides and other such nonsense you came to believe, relegating us first as deranged walking time bombs then to ‘victimized’ deranged walking time bombs.

We know that the current enemy, the Islamofascists, is following the pattern learned and set by the North Vietnamese to inflict death on American troops and drain the public support of our troops and their mission.

All these years later and we still see and hear this misguided rhetoric from you people as you continue to label us as “poor misguided, brainwashed and propagandized.”

At the website linked above, addressing the assembly point, we read, “This is not the Vietnam Memorial itself… We will not be in the Vietnam Memorial and all speakers for amplified sound are turned away from the Memorial so as not to interfere with family members visiting the site.” Gathering of Eagles will be present to ensure that is in fact what you do.

In regards to Gathering of Eagles presence to protect the Wall, Sheehan says, “I have never spat on anything. I have never thrown paint on anything. I wonder which propaganda for profit news source these "Eagles" get their information from?” What “propaganda for profit” source?

Cindy asks, “do you wish that the Iraq War Memorial have 58,000 names on it?”

No, Ms. Sheehan, we do not. That is why we are still adhering to our oath you quoted, “..I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..” That would include self aggrandizing parents of a fallen hero who bash veterans that do not join her misguided anti-American protests and encourage our enemies to kill more troops.

Gathering of Eagles will be there too, Cindy, protecting the Wall and exercising THEIR first amendment freedoms.

Lew

UPDATE 1: For some insight into the veracity of Viet Nam Veterans claims of being spat upon:

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Yesterday, sitting in the Ft. Lewis, Washington Court Room, I’m sure with a smug grin on his face, Ehren Watada, betrayer of his men, hero of the moonbat left and second generation protester listened as the presiding judge declared a mistrial in his Court-Martial for refusing to deploy with his unit and conduct unbecoming an officer.

I stated my own views before when I posted No Lieutenant, You’re a Coward! To date, he has not changed my opinion of him, other than to start making me believe his enlistment might have been a lie designed for just this action. Strictly my opinion, mind you, as I’m sure there would never be any admission if I were correct. Otherwise, his perfidious conduct is very reminiscent of another opportunistic Lieutenant from many years ago, John ‘F’in Kerry (who it has been said, served in Viet Nam).

Reviewing the history and timeline of this sad episode, I discovered that he enlisted while the invasion of Iraq was unfolding. In an October 5, 2006 interview with Staff Reporter Rosette Royale, of Real Change News, a decidedly left and anti-war source, Ms. Royale says, “Back in March of 2003, when Ehren Watada attempted to join the Army, he was told that, due to a medical condition, he was unfit for military service. After paying out of pocket for a breathing test, military physicians, upon reviewing the results, cleared him of any disqualifying condition. Given the green light, he applied for, and was accepted into, the Officers’ Candidate’s School. The soon-to-be 1st Lt. Watada had achieved a lifelong dream.”

“But the glow of achievement went dim two years later, when Watada, 27, was informed he was being deployed to Iraq. The announcement sent him scrambling to learn whatever he could about U.S. military involvement there. After devouring information put out by international law experts, independent journalists, non-governmental organizations, Iraqi civilians, and returning U.S. soldiers alike, he formed a conclusion: the Iraq War was illegal and immoral.”

Hard to find fault in what Ms. Royale wrote, that is, until I sought some other words of Watada’s.

First, I have a problem with it being “a lifelong dream.” In a June 8, 2006 article, Like Father, Like Son, in the Honolulu Star Bulletin, we see that Ehren’s father, Bob Watada, was opposed to Viet Nam and avoided serving there, in spite of the fact that he comes from a family of ten with seven brothers who served in the Military, one making the ultimate sacrifice in Korea. Said Bob Watada, "He told me that he was very proud of his uncle. He was willing to die for his country as his uncle had. He knew the risk.”

By October, Watada’s father was saying, “Ehren is doing this as a matter of conscience. We are proud of the position our son has taken,” adding, “The moment he made his decision, it was like the weight of the world had come off his shoulders, He felt good about his decision, even today. Even ten years from now he knows he did the right thing, even if he has to be punished.”

His mother, Carolyn Ho, whom I believe also opposed the Viet Nam war said her son's decision, is "an act of patriotism, and act of conscience. ... It is a message that blindly following an order is an option. It is a statement that voices of the people must supersede the voices of the politicians."

Seems we’ve heard much of that before, back in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

Watada, in the October, 2006 interview said, “…maybe I didn’t believe that going to invade a sovereign country was fully justified, but I felt that there was no reason to believe our leaders would betray our trust. Maybe it’s a little naïve, but at that time, I think it was hard to conceive that someone would lead us into something as horrible as war and deceive us for the reasons for going into that war.” He also said, “I had my doubts about what was going on over there but, for the most part, I was ready to go,” adding, “… we have been misled into this war under false pretenses and were manipulating intelligence through a policy established long before 9/11 and the 2003 invasion, in order to have the public back this war and have Congress authorize force. I realized that what we were doing in Iraq at the present time, and the whole war itself, was illegal under international law. And not only that, but national law. At that time, I felt like I finally saw the truth. I felt a certain sense of shame of committing these acts and wearing the uniform.”

I see that as quite a bit to digest and form an opinion on in a short amount of time.

Sounding much like John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam, you know) he went on to say, “I could not stand to watch all these soldiers coming back suffering from wounds, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, being away from their families, and also the families of these dead and wounded soldiers. And also the innocent Iraqis who were being slaughtered over there, through collateral damage, or intentionally. And I felt all of this was the result of our own government deceiving us. I felt that millions of Americans out there were so helpless, and that there was nothing we could do to stop this war, nothing we could do to hold our government accountable. And because we couldn’t, our government thought it was okay to continue to commit wrongful acts that violated our most basic principles outlined in the Constitution.”

He calls himself a ”leader of men,” in an August 14, 2006 speech before the Veterans for Peace National Convention. Would a true ‘leader’ accuse men under his charge of “slaughter,” and “intentionally?”

This same ‘leader’ then adds, “The American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed without question. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed. Awareness of the history of atrocities and destruction committed in the name of America – either through direct military intervention or by proxy war - is crucial. They must realize that this is a war not out of self-defense but by choice, for profit and imperialistic domination. WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, and ties to 9/11 never existed and never will. The soldier must know that our narrowly and questionably elected officials intentionally manipulated the evidence presented to Congress, the public, and the world to make the case for war. They must know that neither Congress nor this administration has the authority to violate the prohibition against pre-emptive war - an American law that still stands today. This same administration uses us for rampant violations of time-tested laws banning torture and degradation of prisoners of war. Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crimes.”

Where could Watada have learned this typical anti-war leftist Socialist rhetoric in such a short time as he describes? By his admission, he “..devour[ed] information put out by international law experts, independent journalists, non-governmental organizations, Iraqi civilians, and returning U.S. soldiers alike, [and] formed a conclusion: the Iraq War was illegal and immoral.” One piece of information he “devoured,” James Bamford's Pretext for War, another decidedly anti-war and leftist publication.

He goes on to say, “I speak with you about a radical idea. It is one born from the very concept of the American soldier (or service member). It became instrumental in ending the Vietnam War - but it has been long since forgotten. The idea is this: that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it” Additionally, he also says, “If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols - if they stood up and threw their weapons down - no President could ever initiate a war of choice again.”

Is he encouraging MUTINY? Does he encourage soldiers, facing the enemy they are today, to just “throw down their weapons?” In the face of an enemy that beheads innocent civilians, fights from Mosques, uses IED’s and runs when confronted, he would expect our soldiers to “throw down their weapons?”

This from someone who also says, “… going to Iraq, jumping over the cliff with the rest of the lemming is not in the best service of my country…” In another ‘Kerryesque’ moment, Watada compares soldiers that believe in the cause, obey their orders, place themselves in harm’s way, while he makes speeches against them, spills their blood fighting for our freedom as well as that of the Iraqis, ”lemmings?”

Watada also claims, “…my oath was to the Constitution of the United States. It doesn’t say in the oath for an officer that you follow the orders of the President and those appointed over you.”

Really? Should each officer and enlisted just do as they sees fit, any time they desire? By the very constitution he claims he “swore to uphold,” the president is the “Commander in Chief” of the Military. Does his claim also apply to those men who had the distinct dishonor of having served directly under him?

I also wonder if he ever actually read the Constitution he so adamantly claims to swore an oath to defend? From Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution under Presidential powers, we see, “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

How does one claim to hold our Constitution so dear, yet violate what it clearly states? As an Officer, he issued orders to those under him, fully expecting them to be followed as he stated, not as the enlisted felt like. Yet, he sees no need to follow the order of his own Superiors?

Ehren Watada is no ‘leader of men.’ He is no ‘hero.’ He’s just another cheap leftist posing in a uniform he disgraces.

Watada’s parents may be proud of him. He appears to be a chip off the old block. I still feel that his enlistment was so he could pull just this act and become another John ‘F’in Kerry, using a junior officer rank to oppose the very foundation of our Military and undermine troop morale, the same troops he swore to care for while in his charge and who he abandoned for this cheap stunt. If he were my son, we would be heading out back behind the woodshed.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Since the 2000 elections, we have seen list after list of Draft Dodger “chickenhawks,” Republicans, while another list of “heroic Democrats” is posted alongside, in some futile attempt to make Democrats look like the only ones qualified to speak about or lead us “out” of the War on Terror, especially the part ongoing in Iraq.

Of course, it also attempts to make Democrats above reproach when they blast George W. Bush’s leadership and Presidency. The bashing and slanderous comments against over 200 highly decorated Viet Nam Combat Veterans, the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, including Medal of Honor recipient, Col. (ret) Bud Day, somehow slipped below their radar of Honorable Veterans deserving to speak out.

My attempt here is to set the record straight, to research each name on a typical list and post the truth. I have copied the common list of names and the claims made, both parties. I will not correct bad spelling and will place the original claim in italics with normal font identifying what I find. Where possible, a link will be provided to the source.

Having served in either the Reserves or National Guard is not considered “draft dodging,” or "avoiding the draft" by me.

Ashcroft spent the rest of the Vietnam War in Missouri, safe and sound. And quiet: Although Ashcroft was clearly eager to avoid going to Vietnam, he never protested the war.

It is said Ashcroft received seven draft deferments between 1963 and 1969. As he was born in 1942, he would have been 21 and prior to the escalation of Viet Nam when he received the first deferment, 27 and as Viet Nam was winding down under the “Vietnamization” program when he received the last. While not unheard of, few in that age group were drafted at that time.

Draft Deferments were legal and several members of both parties, before and during Viet Nam, were recipients of them. Receiving a deferment was NOT dodging the draft, unless obtained illegally.

Limbaugh held a 2-S draft status (student deferement) until he dropped out when he was reclassified as 1-A, available for immediate induction, if called. Shortly after, he was reclassified as 1-Y, (qualified for service only in time of [declared] war or national emergency) due to an inoperable pilonidal cyst and a High School Football injury to his knee. Rush Limbaugh Deferments

Also, these deferments were granted towards the end of the Viet Nam War, making the likelihood of being drafted even less for others with a 1-A classification.

Goerge W. Bush=got out of military servcie by using his dad's politicalconnections to get a straight line to a Nation Guard position (ahead of theother 5,000 slobs who were waiting in line) and a DIRECT COMMISSION as afighter pilot! In the REAL WORLD the only people who get direct non-fieldcommissions are Doctors, Lawyers, R.N.'s, Dentists, Pharmacists, etc. Not fighter pilots!

Not at all true. At the time of Bush’s enlistment into the Texas Air National Guard the waiting list was only for enlisted positions, not for those asking to become Fighter Pilots. No strings were pulled for Bush and he did complete his needed hours honorably. At one point, he even requested Viet Nam duty but was denied due to lack of needed hours to qualify for program. George Bush and the F-102The Real Military Record of George W. Bush

Cheney= Dodged the draft in Vietnam. As his confermation hearing to Sec. ofDefense he said he had better thing to do!

Again, misleading. Yes, Cheney did receive 5 student deferments, hardly unusual considering the hero of the Democrats, Senator John F. Kerry, and received 4, before enlisting in the Naval Reserves.

Cheney was born in 1941 and when he turned 18, in 1959, mostly older men were being drafted at that time and very few. As he turned older, his student deferments were legally obtained and once married and his wife pregnant, he received a 3-A (hardship) exemption. In 1967, he turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.

Reagan was commissioned as a reserve officer in the Army in 1935. In November 1941, Reagan was called up for combat duty but disqualified because of his astigmatism. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant Reagan was activated and assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit in the United States Army Air Forces, which made training and education films for the war effort. Ronald Reagan Bio

Kemp= got a free educatioin at West Point, made it 4 years there and playedfootbal for them. But just as he was to graduate and get commissioned, hedeveloped a rare medical condition that made him too sick to be in the Army,but healthy enough to play in the NFL!

Jack Kemp started his NFL career in 1957 (born in 1935). He is a graduate of Occidental College. Jack Kemp BioServed United States Army Reserve, 1958-1962 (active duty, 1958), was too old for Viet Nam when that came about. Jack Kemp Collection

Rooservelt= was only member of his family not to serve due to his polio.

Roosevelt wanted to enter military service following the United States' entry into World War I in April 1917, but Josephus Daniels (Naval Secretary) persuaded him to stay on in the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Roosevelt contracted polio in 1921, at the age of 39, after World War One. FDR Bio

Kennedy= War Hero (P.T. 109)

The PT 109 incident remains the only American PT Boat rammed and sunk by a Japanese Destroyer in all of WW2. JFK’s effectiveness and possibilities as President will never be completely known due to be assassinated in his first term, November 22, 1963.

Johnson= served as a Military Intelligence Officer in the NAVY in the Pacific

Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve (USNR). Somehow received an Army Silver Star for gallantry from General McArthur for a single flight as an observer on an aircraft that developed mechanical troubles and turned back. LBJ Military Service

Carter= Annopolis Graduate, served 8 Years in teh Navy. Was hand picked out ofthe Academy my Rictover (sp?) to help develop the nuclear navy.

Mostly hype. Carter served in the Navy from 1946 to 1953, when he requested release from his commission due to his father’s death, to run the family business. He was indeed interviewed and accepted by Admiral Rickover, serving from November 1952 to March of 1953 on temporary duty with the Naval Reactors Branch. Carter was preparing to become the engineering officer for the nuclear power plant to be placed in USS Seawolf when his father died and he was released from active duty. Jimmy Carter’s Military Service

Carter is also noted for granting amnesty to Viet Nam Era Draft Dodgers, opening the way back for those that ran, snubbing his nose at those who served.

Rumsfeld served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957 as a naval aviator and flight instructor. His initial training was in the North American SNJ Texan basic trainer after which he transitioned to flying the Grumman F9F Panther fighter. In 1957, he transferred to the Naval Reserve and continued his naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the standby reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and retired with the rank of Navy Captain in 1989." Donald Rumsfeld

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Served his country in uniform, 1965-71

Air National Guard 1965 to 1971

House Minority Whip David Bonior - Served his country in uniform, 1968-72

Staff Sergeant US Air Force 1968 to 1972, author of two books: The Vietnam Veteran: A History of Neglect and Walking to Mackinac. Did not serve in Viet Nam.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle - Served his country in uniform, 1969-72

1st Lt., Air Force SAC Intelligence Officer, 1969-72

Vice President Al Gore - Served his country in uniform, 1969-71; recipient ofVietnam Service Medal

Served 5 months in Viet Nam as a Reporter/Journalist. Everybody that served in Viet Nam qualified for the Vietnam Service Ribbon (not a medal).

Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, VN

Served honorably, accused of war crimes during the late 1990s, wrongfully in my opinion.

Daniel Inouye... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, WW II

Served honorably with the infamous 442nd Infantry in Europe. Received MOH for “extraordinary heroism.”

John Kerry... Democrat...Silver Star& Bronze Star, VN

Served 4 months in Viet Nam, medals questionable, especially 3 Purple Hearts without spending a single night in a hospital. Went on to sell out Viet Nam Veterans by accusing them of heinous war crimes “on a day to day basis.”

Charles Rangel...Democrat... Bronze Star, Korea

Served honorably

Max Cleland... Democrat... Silver Star & Bronze Star, VN

Honorable Service, accidentally dropped a live grenade while visiting a battle site in Viet Nam, it went off, costing him both legs and one arm. No Purple Heart awarded, Cleland himself saying, “And it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didn’t deserve it.” Two pages later he added: “I was not entitled to the Purple Heart either, since I was not wounded by enemy action.” (1986 edition of his autobiography Strong at the Broken Places) Max Cleland: Deceptive Democrat Warrior

Howell Heflin... Democrat... Silver Star

Served Honorably, World War Two, USMC

Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished FlyingCrosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal.

Served honorably, 21 years, retired Lt. Col. US Army.

Ambassador "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Democratic congressman,Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Starand the Legion of Merit

Served honorably, ex-POW.

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: served in combat with the U.S. Army as a staffsergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade; was wounded andreceived a Purple Heart.

Served honorably, Viet Nam.

Prominent Republicans

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Born in 1942, Rejected from advanced ROTC at Wheaton College for bad shoulder stemming from sports injury

Majority Leader Dick Armey- avoided the draft, did not serve.

Born 1940, was never called.

Majority Whip Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Legal Student deferment (University of Houston 1970); high draft-lottery number afterwards, likelihood of being called very slim. Did not avoid.

Attended Loyola Marymount University on a draft deferment until 1953. At age 19, Dornan volunteered to join the United States Air Force. During his time in the air force, he survived two emergency parachute ejections and two "dead stick" forced landings (including one of an F-100). Dornan also served as a photographer during the Vietnam War and he flew relief flights into Biafra. He was an active duty serviceman until 1958, reaching the rank of Captain. He served in the reserves until 1975. Bob Dornan

Served honorably, best I know. Some former POWs question his conduct while a POW, John McCain, No Hero Why is mentioning the Senators Congressional voting record considered a campaign smear? Is that why Moveon.org is attacking the Senator today?

Former Senator Bob Dole - an honorable man.

An honorable man who was attacked throughout the 1996 campaigns, sort of like the complaint against Bush and McCain, but it was Democrat Bill Clinton this time.

Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.

Served honorably in Viet Nam, 1968

Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross,two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several otherdecorations

Served honorably and heroically, convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery, serving 8 years in prison.

Re military personnel and public perception of Democrats v. Republicans ingeneral.

How often must Democrats defend their party against the typical freeper blatherof draft-dodging, service-evading, unpatriotic quakers among us? More often thanwe have to.

Gore was right all along. About some things. The "truth" IS on our side.

Since whoever compiled the list for the Democrats is so adamant that "the truth IS on our side," you would have expected them to be a bit more honest in the list, wouldn't you?

Lew

UPDATE: Another blogsite A Bluestem Prairie has posted under the title Another Democrat exposed: Tim Walz, draft dodger? what appears to me to be a lame attempt of discrediting my effort here and make it appear to declare one Democrat, Tim Walz, a draft dodger. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, we all know truth is a problem for the left.

For the record, as evidenced by the links after the listed names, Walz is but one of many listed, the date originally posted was wrong, a typo, which is also a mistake. Under an anonymous post, I was informed of this. Since I work for a living and couldn’t instantly correct the date, which wrongfully listed Walz’s enlistment as 1971 instead of 1981, the comment, “Lew still hasn't corrected his list despite a comment letting him know how old Walz was,” was made approximately two hours after the post was made. No biggie, I understand the left’s impatience with others. The fact that we are separated by different time zones and must actually appear at our jobs to receive pay matters little to these people.

What does bother me is that after making two posts here, wrongfully impugning my intentions and impatiently expecting an instant correction, I made a refutation comment on their blog, which has not appeared in over 24 hours. They moderate comments there.

My guess is that to left, only their view is what matters, not truth.

Personally, I have no idea who Tim Walz is, what he stands for or if he is a decent Representative for Minnesota. I reside in Washington State and concern myself with my Representative, Brian Baird, who did not serve at all. Although Baird came of age after the draft ended, I do not hold non-service against him, I respectfully oppose his views and have corresponded with him often, always receiving a respectful reply.

Had the author of A Bluestem Prairie contacted me and just said the dates of the ONE person on the list was wrong, it still would have been corrected, but then, they wouldn’t have their drama.

I can only say to A Bluestem Prairie, “get a life.”

UPDATE: As I have said elsewhere and in replies, NEITHER PARTY HAS ANY CLAIM TO ANY MORAL HIGH GROUND BASED ON WHO DID OR DIDN'T SERVE. Both have Veterans as well as non-servers.

The original "Who Served" list was compiled in a dishonest and deceptive way, picking and choosing who to list, for maximum effect.

Conspicuously missing on the original list are party leaders, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean (who had the same classification, 1-Y, as did Rush Limbaugh), Rahm Emanuel, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and I'm sure a few more, who didn't serve. Does this make them draft avoiders? Not to me. But, why is it Republicans that didn't serve are listed as draft avoiders? That is the deception.

Still left unexplained (not asked in this post, asked several years ago by me to others) is why did Military Service matter so much in 1988, 2000 and 2004, but had nothing to do with a candidates ability in 1992 and 1996?

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Every day we hear the radio waves broadcasting these sometimes self proclaimed “experts” in how to live your life better. Some have a real background in psychological therapy, others may hold a certificate in counseling and some others may just portray themselves as “I know better than you.” Some call themselves “doctor” due to holding a PhD in an unrelated field.

People across the land have problems and too many haven’t the skills to adequately deal with them, they think. Calling radio programs is affordable, it’s free and you stand a good chance of getting on the air, provided your particular ‘problem’ is interesting enough to make the ‘expert’ look good and helpful and boost their broadcast ratings. High ratings translate into precious advertising dollars for the host therapist and station owners.

Most all end up sharing their knowledge with us through the local Barnes and Noble in the form of the many books they ‘write.’ ‘Expert’ advice and a peek into how these radio therapists (not to be confused with the medical field of radiotherapy) have helped many are all yours, for $14.95 a book.

Periodically, the radio therapist grants an appearance in a town for a book signing, advertising for listeners to drop on by and buy the latest and best help and advice they have offered. Enamored listeners line up hours in advance for the chance to actually meet Dr. Whoever and purchase a copy of the latest hawking, sometimes personally signed by the author, for a small extra fee, sometimes included in regular purchase price.

Listening to their programs, there isn’t any shortage of callers tearfully explaining their ‘problem’ or ‘uncertainty’ to the host. Naturally, after granting the caller a scant few seconds of consideration, the host has the answer, often something the caller already knew but for whatever reason, didn’t want to face. Dump the boyfriend, buy the wife a new wardrobe, cancel the cable bill, find a new job, confront the boss or the secretary, the caller is told what to do, the host looks knowledgeable and everything is happy ever after.

Or is it?

Often times, these radio therapists are exposed for a seedy past or not following their own advice. It isn’t all of them, mind you, but some do become exposed through past lovers who may have embarrassing photos they make public or seedy stories of illicit love affairs. These exposé’s have been known to shatter careers after drawn out court battles and tearful apologies to listeners. The crafty ones own up to the past misdeeds, after denials and minimizing the deeds. Then, they may go on the offensive by claiming the conduct was from before they had whatever ‘epiphany’ it was that enlightened them to now embrace the values and mores they now extol, but many listeners have held dear their entire lives. Of course, having whatever past misdeed that have been exposed aired publicly becomes their basis for now holding superior knowledge to give you advice as they can claim their own failures as proof of whatever they now speak against isn’t good for you. In the meantime, the dollars and accolades keep pouring in, providing the radio therapist a very grand lifestyle.

The host may also make claims of only being human, excusing their own shortcomings, but it seems some forget their callers are also human. As such, we tend to look at our troubles through our own eyes and mindset, not the one we may be experiencing the problem with. It is only natural and competent therapists and counselors realizing this, advise both people, usually in a relationship arrangement or marriage, only after sitting down and listening to both sides equally. Then, instead of telling them what they must do, they guide the couple to discovery of the answer between them and within them.

How can a radio therapist do this when most often, they only get one side of a multifaceted problem? Are there people still in abusive relationships, following the advice of Dr So and So who had a glib piece of helpful advice? Were salvageable relationships scrapped due to the same? No one really keeps track of any of this, just hawk whatever appears a success for the host, all yours again for another $14.95 at your Barnes Noble.

If you ever do have the opportunity to meet one at their book signings or other personal appearances and for some reason, miss out, don’t dare express any disappointment to the ‘kind and caring’ Dr. So and So. If you do, even if you try to do it in a calm and complimentary manner, don’t be surprised to receive an answer of what an “appalling sense of entitlement” you have, even though you may not have asked for anything. Be prepared to be ‘dressed down’ for using his or her own advice of “getting something off your chest to the person who disappointed you,” when that person may be the radio therapist himself or herself. Expect to be told you need their books more now than ever to “learn humility and courtesy.”

Once was the time, when we had smaller communities and neighbors that knew each other, we could turn to trusted friends, clergy or real doctors for advice. As with most of our older ways, this too has fallen by the wayside. In the days of Urban sprawl, mega-churches, hiding inside of our homes, ATM cards and computer purchasing, we seem to have forgotten that we need to interact with each other and be there for others. In the vacuum created, we now have entertainers giving us advice on what we should have learned from human interaction. In return, the radio therapist/entertainer becomes wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and keeps pumping out their daily shows and hawking their latest book.

Some use their ‘celebrity’ to speak out for or against politicians, world events, even the current War on Terror, leaving listeners feeling as if they have some marvelous insight into whatever position they may favor. Enamored fans may adopt the same agenda, feeling a closer relationship to the host.

With all their punditry, though, they are just lucky people who have been able to market themselves successfully, at our expense. They don’t have all the answers, no one does. We each have the answer we may need inside of us, but may need help discovering it. Going through a call screener to hopefully air your grief on the airwaves may not be the best way to discover yourself. Running down to the local Barnes and Noble because of their latest release also may not be the best method. Competent counselors and therapists are available that will sit down and help you find the answers, if need be. They won’t give you glib answers, cut you off assuming what you will say next or put you on hold for “station identity break” or “pay the bills commercials.”

Remember, if you do feel the desire to read one of their books, Goodwill and the Salvation Army always seem to have a good supply of them.

Lew

UPDATE: I am not endorsing this, nor do I have any plans of reading beyond the reviews, but have found that I am not alone in my views of these radio therapists. What is ironic, if not downright funny, is that to "discover" how to end your reliance on them, you need to purchase someone elses book. SHAMThe Self-Help and Actualization Movement

Words from Heroes To Heroes. Do No Harm, Especially to Yourself

Subscribe To Right In A Left World

Followers

Contributors

Important Links

Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. - Winston Churchill

“A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The 'United States of America', for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'” (Author unknown)

---------------------------------

I stood up, I showed up, I stepped forward.
I raised my right hand, I stood in the gap, I walked in the fire. I did not run, I did not hide, I did not dodge, I did not evade.

Consequently...

I have nothing to prove, no one to convince, those who matter, already know. Those who don't, never will.
(Author Unknown)

African-Americans, are you tired of being short-changed by the Democrats you keep voting for? Fed up with their empty promises while you stay poor? Can’t understand why your lives never improve? You will find answers at the National Black Republican Association